MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054295450 · doi:10.1117/12.428006

<title>Simulation of picosecond pulsed laser ablation of silicon: the molecular-dynamics thermal-annealing model</title>

2001· article· en· W2054295450 on OpenAlexaff
Patrick Lorazo, Laurent J. Lewis, Michel Meunier

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLaser Material Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials sciencePicosecondSiliconAnnealing (glass)Laser ablationAblationScatteringTemperature gradientLaserOpticsMolecular physicsOptoelectronicsComposite materialPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A molecular-dynamics thermal-annealing model is proposed to study the mechanisms of ablation induced in crystalline silicon by picosecond pulses. In accordance with the thermal annealing model, a detailed description of the microscopic processes resulting from the interaction of a 308 nm, 10 ps, Gaussian pulse with a Si(100) substrate has been embedded into a molecular- dynamics scheme. This was accomplished by explicitly accounting for carrier-phonon scattering and carrier diffusion. Above the predicted threshold energy for ablation, F<SUB>th</SUB> equals 0.25 J/cm<SUP>2</SUP>, ablation is driven by subsurface superheating effects: intense heating by the pulse leads to the thermal confinement of the laser-deposited energy. As a result, the material is overheated up to its critical (spinodal) point and a strong pressure gradient builds up within the absorbing volume. At the same time, diffusion of the carriers in the bulk leads to the development of a steep temperature gradient below the surface. Matter removal is subsequently triggered by the relaxation the pressure gradient as a large--few tens of nm thick--piece of material is expelled from the surface.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.732
Threshold uncertainty score0.568

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.215 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicLaser Material Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207